L. E. ROWE, FEMME SOLE,
v.
CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE; LEWIS E. MOORE, AS MAYOR; W. J. EASTMAN, T. B. MANUEL, H. Y. NEWSHAM, AND GENEVIEVE PHYSHON, AS CITY COMMISSIONERS; J. H. PHILPOT, AS CITY MANAGER; SARA CRIM, AS TAX COLLECTOR, AND S. H. MARSHALL, AS CITY CLERK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
L. E. Rowe challenged Fort Lauderdale's issuance of $750,000 in waterworks revenue certificates used to refund existing certificates and improve its sewer system. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of her complaint, holding that the city had statutory authority to issue such certificates without voter approval because they constitute revenue obligations, not general obligation bonds.
The city has statutory authority under Chapter 10552 of the Special Acts of 1925 to issue such waterworks revenue certificates. Because these certificates do not pledge the city's taxing power, contain no foreclosure provisions, and are payable only from net waterworks revenues, they do not constitute bonds requiring voter approval.
“The certificates do not pledge the taxing power of the City; they contain no provision for foreclosure; the funds from which they are to be paid in no way involve the taxing power and the maturities are so arranged that it is possible to pay them as they mature from the net proceeds of the waterworks system. For these reasons, they do not partake of the nature of bonds and the question vel non of their issue does not have to be approved by a vote of the people.”
Establishes the primary test for whether revenue certificates require voter approval—they must not pledge taxing power or include foreclosure provisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Fort Lauderdale proposed to issue $750,000 in waterworks revenue certificates to refund $210,000 in outstanding waterworks revenue certifi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Assessments cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant as complainant filed her bill of complaint in the circuit court seeking to restrain the City of Fort Lauderdale from issuing $750,000 in waterworks revenue certificates for the purpose of refunding $210,000 outstanding waterworks revenue certificates and for the purpose of improving and extending its sanitary sewer system. At the final hearing on the issue made by bill and answer, the Chancellor on consideration of a stipulation and evidence taken, dismissed the bill of complaint. This appeal is from the final decree.
The question presented is whether or not the City of Fort *747Lauderdale has the power to issue waterworks revenue certificates payable from the net revenue of its water system for the purpose of refunding outstanding certificates not yet matured and for the purpose of extending and improving its sewer system and then levy special assessments against the property so benefited.
Chapter 10552, Special Acts of 1925, Sections 105 and 110, et seq.j of the said Act, and Acts amendatory thereof provide ample authority for the issuance of the certificates brought in question and for the extension of the sewer system in the manner proposed.
The certificates do not pledge the taxing power of the City; they contain no provision for foreclosure; the funds from which they are to be paid in no way involve the taxing power and the maturities are so arranged that it is possible to pay them as they mature from the net proceeds of the waterworks system. For these reasons, they do npt partake of the nature of bonds and the question vel non of their issue does not have to be approved by a vote of the people.
It is shown here that the City of Fort Lauderdale operates its waterworks and sewer system as one system and under the same management, that the improvement proposed is essential to the growth, sanitation, welfare, and convenience of the City. As to the $210,000 outstanding waterworks revenue certificates, it is shown that these were issued in December, 1939, in' a much larger sum, that they have been materially reduced and that they have callable provisions attached whereby they may be refunded at any time.
In fine, the City of Fort Lauderdale proposes to pledge a portion of the net revenue from its waterworks system to redeem certain outstanding certificates and to improve and extend its sewerage system. The proposal is authorized *748by Chapter 10552, Special Acts of 1925, is not such an indebtedness as requires an approving vote of the taxpayers, and is concluded by the following cases: Hess v. City of Orlando, 133 Fla. 831, 183 So. 473; Trudnak v. City of Fort Pierce, 135 Fla. 573, 185 So. 353; Dickey v. Broward County Port Authority, 135 Fla. 622, 185, So. 349.
Other questions have been examined but they present no reversible error so the judgment of the Chancellor is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., Brown, Buford, Ci-iapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Escambia Cnty., 52 So.2d 125 (Fla. 1951)…hat the bonds and interest shall be paid only from the revenues of the certificates of indebtedness. The taxing power of Escambia County is in no manner pledged or obligated for the payment of these certificates. See Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 142 Fla. 746, 196 So. 199; State v. Dade County, 146 Fla. 331, 337, 200 So. 2d 848; State v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Commission, 148 Fla. 485, 4 So. 2d 662; State v. Alachua County, 154 Fla. 1, 16 So. 2d 288; State v. City of Miami, 157 Fla. 616, 26 So. 2d 672. T…
-
Powell v. Am. Sumatra Tobacco Co. & O. L. Smith, 154 Fla. 227 (Fla. 1944)…adduced, during the progress of the trial, but were erroneous and prejudicial, and to sustain the contention emphasis is placed on our recent holdings in Atlantic Coast Line Ry. v. Voss and Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. v. Redemp-torists, 136 Fla. 32, 196 So. 199; Loftin v. Skelton, 152 Fla. 437, 12 So. (2nd) 175, while other cases involving the statute are cited. We quote, in part, from brief of counsel for appellant: “This concluded the testimony and evidence offered by the defendants. We submit that by…
-
Belle v. Follansbee, 156 Fla. 368 (Fla. 1945)…from the net revenues of its water system. It appears that its charter Chapter 10552, Special Acts of 1925, authorized this. It affirmatively appears that the provisions of the city charter were being complied with. Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 142 Fla. 746, 196 So. 199. We find no reversible error so the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. CHAPMAN, C. J., BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur. BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., dissent.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hess v. City of Orlando, 133 Fla. 831 (Fla. 1938)
- Trudnak v. City of Fort Pierce, 135 Fla. 573 (Fla. 1938)
- Dickey v. Broward Cnty. Port Auth., 135 Fla. 622 (Fla. 1938)